OBJECTIVES: Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis using computed tomography (CT) examinations that happen to visualise the spine can be used to identify patients with osteoporosis. We sought to verify the diagnostic performance of vertebral Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements on routine CT examinations for diagnosing osteoporosis in a separate, external population. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent a CT examination of the chest or abdomen and had also received a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) test were retrospectively included. CTs were evaluated for vertebral fractures and vertebral attenuation (density) values were measured. Diagnostic performance measures and the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC) for diagnosing osteoporosis were calculated. RESULTS: Three hundred and two patients with a mean age of 57.9 years were included, of which 82 (27%) had osteoporosis according to DXA and 65 (22%) had vertebral fractures. The diagnostic performance for vertebral HU measurements was modest, with a maximal AUC of 0.74 (0.68 - 0.80). At that optimal threshold the sensitivity was 62% (51 - 72%) and the specificity was 79% (74 - 84%). CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed that simple trabecular vertebral density measurements on routine CT contain diagnostic information related to bone mineral density as measured by DXA, albeit with substantially lower diagnostic accuracy than previously reported. KEY POINTS: • We externally validated the value of vertebral trabecular bone attenuation for osteoporosis • These diagnostic performance measures were, however, substantially lower than previously reported • This information might be useful when considering the implementation of opportunistic osteoporosis screening.
OBJECTIVES: Opportunistic screening for osteoporosis using computed tomography (CT) examinations that happen to visualise the spine can be used to identify patients with osteoporosis. We sought to verify the diagnostic performance of vertebral Hounsfield unit (HU) measurements on routine CT examinations for diagnosing osteoporosis in a separate, external population. METHODS: Consecutive patients who underwent a CT examination of the chest or abdomen and had also received a dual-energy X-ray absorptiometry (DXA) test were retrospectively included. CTs were evaluated for vertebral fractures and vertebral attenuation (density) values were measured. Diagnostic performance measures and the area under the receiver operator characteristics curve (AUC) for diagnosing osteoporosis were calculated. RESULTS: Three hundred and two patients with a mean age of 57.9 years were included, of which 82 (27%) had osteoporosis according to DXA and 65 (22%) had vertebral fractures. The diagnostic performance for vertebral HU measurements was modest, with a maximal AUC of 0.74 (0.68 - 0.80). At that optimal threshold the sensitivity was 62% (51 - 72%) and the specificity was 79% (74 - 84%). CONCLUSIONS: We confirmed that simple trabecular vertebral density measurements on routine CT contain diagnostic information related to bone mineral density as measured by DXA, albeit with substantially lower diagnostic accuracy than previously reported. KEY POINTS: • We externally validated the value of vertebral trabecular bone attenuation for osteoporosis • These diagnostic performance measures were, however, substantially lower than previously reported • This information might be useful when considering the implementation of opportunistic osteoporosis screening.
Authors: Ling Oei; Fernando Rivadeneira; Felisia Ly; Stephan J Breda; M Carola Zillikens; Albert Hofman; André G Uitterlinden; Gabriel P Krestin; Edwin H G Oei Journal: Eur Radiol Date: 2012-08-15 Impact factor: 5.315
Authors: Constantinus F Buckens; Pim A de Jong; Willem P Mali; Harald J Verhaar; Yolanda van der Graaf; Helena M Verkooijen Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2014-02 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: W D Leslie; L M Giangregorio; M Yogendran; M Azimaee; S Morin; C Metge; P Caetano; L M Lix Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2011-04-08 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: Perry J Pickhardt; B Dustin Pooler; Travis Lauder; Alejandro Muñoz del Rio; Richard J Bruce; Neil Binkley Journal: Ann Intern Med Date: 2013-04-16 Impact factor: 25.391
Authors: Colleen J Metge; William D Leslie; Lori-Jean Manness; Marina Yogendran; C K Yuen; Brent Kvern Journal: Can Fam Physician Date: 2008-09 Impact factor: 3.275
Authors: L Bessette; L-G Ste-Marie; S Jean; K S Davison; M Beaulieu; M Baranci; J Bessant; J P Brown Journal: Osteoporos Int Date: 2007-07-20 Impact factor: 4.507
Authors: B Lawrence Riggs; L Joseph Melton; Richard A Robb; Jon J Camp; Elizabeth J Atkinson; Lisa McDaniel; Shreyasee Amin; Peggy A Rouleau; Sundeep Khosla Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2008-02 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Constantinus F Buckens; Pim A de Jong; Christian Mol; Eric Bakker; Hein P Stallman; Willem P Mali; Yolanda van der Graaf; Helena M Verkooijen Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-08-05 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Scott J Lee; Peter M Graffy; Ryan D Zea; Timothy J Ziemlewicz; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: J Bone Miner Res Date: 2018-02-05 Impact factor: 6.741
Authors: Ashley A Weaver; Kristen M Beavers; R Caresse Hightower; Sarah K Lynch; Anna N Miller; Joel D Stitzel Journal: Traffic Inj Prev Date: 2015 Impact factor: 1.491
Authors: Scott J Lee; Jiamin Liu; Jianhua Yao; Andrew Kanarek; Ronald M Summers; Perry J Pickhardt Journal: Br J Radiol Date: 2018-03-28 Impact factor: 3.039
Authors: Daniel L Christensen; Kyle E Nappo; Jared A Wolfe; Sean M Wade; Daniel I Brooks; Benjamin K Potter; Jonathan A Forsberg; Scott M Tintle Journal: Clin Orthop Relat Res Date: 2019-04 Impact factor: 4.176
Authors: Max J Scheyerer; Bernhard Ullrich; Georg Osterhoff; Ulrich A Spiegl; Klaus J Schnake Journal: Unfallchirurg Date: 2019-08 Impact factor: 1.000